Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon can see into the future, apparently

Ryan Wilson at AOL Fanhouse has a video of Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon discussing the recent death of Sean Taylor. They cover a pretty large range, so I don't want to limit their discussion to this or that, but what confused me about the interview boils down to these two quotes, taken completely out of context:

In any event, here's my issue with the general sentiment above, that we're going to, in the future, "find out things that are not flattering to all the people involved"... First, initially, well fucking DUH. We're going to find out who murdered Sean Taylor. And the fact that that person murdered Sean Taylor will not reflect flatteringly on said shithead.

More importantly, if Tony is suggesting that we're going to find out something unflattering about Sean Taylor, would it really kill you, as a columnist and pundit opposed to a reporter, to actually wait for those future facts to come to light?

Even more importantly, I'm interested to hear what that fact pattern could possibly be that will reflect poorly on a guy who was murdered in his own home? Is Tony suggesting that we'll find out the guy who murdered Sean Taylor was his drug dealer? Is that the kind of fact we're talking about? Out of respect for the player, I think we all have a responsibility not to speculate on imaginary bad-behavior on the part of Sean until facts are actually in.

On an unrelated note, I predict that in 17 days a story will break in the Washington Times that Tony Kornheiser molested 2,774 children at a Hotel in East Timor. Don't ask me how I know that, I exist to write my opinion, therefore I can speculate on facts yet reported.

More likely, and I've read this elsewhere, I think what Tony is suggesting is that we'll find out Sean Taylor had some connection with the murderer, that he was either a jealous old friend of the kind Antre Rolle was talking about or perhaps he was one of the people involved in the prior ATV incident. Even were that the case, and it certainly appears like that's a possibility given the circumstances of the crime, why on earth would that reflect poorly on Sean Taylor? That the piece of shit who stole Sean Taylor's ATVs knew Sean, was retaliating against him for beating his ass, doesn't mean he was right or justified in doing so. It just means that the piece of shit was a thief and a murderer. There's this crazy assumption that Sean Taylor was somehow wrong to confront the people who stole from him. Perhaps he was wrong to "simple assault" them, but that's 2nd degree misdemeanor wrong. Not, you-brought-this-vicious-murder-on-yourself-you-horrible-delinquent, wrong.

Did you know? Under Florida Statute, adultery is also a 2nd degree misdemeanor. 798.01. Living in open adultery reads:

Also, there is nothing currently on record that shows Sean "had brandished weapons" at anyone. What is on record is a simple battery and simple assault charge he plead no contest to, and the elements of those crimes under Florida law do not include the presence of a gun, whereas an element of aggravated assault and battery is the presence of a deadly weapon. The aggravated assault charge was dropped. The State of Florida does not believe that Sean Taylor had a gun at the ATV incident, per their decision to drop the aggravated assault charge. Isn't it possible that Sean Taylor, consistent with what he said even after the plea bargain, never had a gun at that fight?

To Wilbon I'd say much of the same. I'd also add that if I'm "going to hear things that happened to one of your heroes... hear things that involved one of your heroes..." it will necessarily include him defending his home and family against murderers with a machete. And that impresses me. I mean really, truly, absolutely impresses me, damn near regardless of the circumstances. Short of breaking news that Sean Taylor was killed because he drew the ire of a kitten-loving syndicate once they found fields of kitten harvesting buried beneath his basement and farmed by aliens, I doubt there's much that will be said about Sean Taylor that's going to sully my opinion of him (and I hate kittens). Will it be revealed, OH NO!, that Sean Taylor hung out with rough people? And?

As a human being, isn't he entitled to select his company without fear of being murdered? Finally, isn't he entitled to the benefit of the doubt until these mysterious facts yet reported come to light? Especially considering the now proven history of people accusing Sean Taylor of doing things (DUI, aggravated assault) he didn't actually do?

Lee Gibbons knows what I'm talking about.

I doubt Jason Whitlock does, though.

I think Mike Freeman gets it.